They are at my school and have fancy titles like 'Director of.............' Personally I think it's a dead end assistant headship as most will need another sideways move before making it to deputy so they can build up evidence of whole school impact. It also creates a conflict between them as a member of SLT and them as a leader of a department/faculty. When top whack TLR is what 11-12k then I don't really see why they need to be paid on leadership. UPS3 + top TLR pretty much = leadership but you keep your STPCD.

Really winds me up how core subjects are treated like royalty. You already get a lot of support from the school, guaranteed classes at KS4, what more do you want? Do you work harder than the little subjects? Can't see the evidence of that at my place.

They are at my school and have fancy titles like 'Director of.............'

Click to expand...

How strange. The job title "Director of" has traditionally been used in schools for heads of departments where much of the work is done outside of the classroom (Director of Music, Director of Games, etc), and certainly not for core-curriculum subjects.
Perhaps they imagine that friends and neighbours will think that they are on the board if they say that they are directors.

One of the reasons why heads of core subjects get "treated like royalty" is the huge difference between our role and other "non-core" subjects.

1. Yes we have guaranteed classes at KS4 - We are compulsory, no choosing pupils for us, we get the lot!
2. No choice for us about how we are assessed at the end of KS4, exams it is.
3. Position in league tables depends on us, and regardless of how people feel about tables, they matter. We mess up and the whole school suffers.........
4. Classes run in holiday time
5. Endless meetings to discuss progress of each pupil
6. Countless free lessons given up for 'intervention'
Personally I hate it. I would be happy living in an "all subjects are equal" system. But we don't.
Change the system and make it History and DT as the two main compulsory subjects and I will happily give up being treated like royalty.
Walk a mile in our shoes for a bit and see how it feels

Can't speak for DT but seems to me that with the new Ebac Humanities and Languages will have to walk a mile in your shoes now, won't they?
I agree with your point 3. I won't feel sorry for you though. If a couple of weak pupils choose my subject (and contrary to what you imply in point 1, I don't have the power to dissuade them, nor would I want to, after all my job is at risk if not enough pupils choose my subject) then my percentage of A*-C will quickly suffer. Unlike core subjects, I won't be allowed to pull those weaker pupils out of other lessons for extra sessions or coursework boosters. SMT won't let me make smaller sets and I'll have to teach the whole range of ability in one class, with probably fewer teaching hours than the core subjects.
I'm not sure how you'd like to assess pupils other than an exam (perhaps I'm a little naive) so I don't understand your point 2.
As I teach MFL any of the trips I want to run (you know, to try and persuade kids to take my subject, ref point 1) must be done during my own holidays entirely, where I will be on duty 24/7 for the full week, so I believe that trumps your point 4.
And finally, I'm not sure why you imagine that us little people don't have meetings to discuss pupil progress or give up frees for intervention too. Again, just 1 weak pupil out of a group of 15 GCSE students is probably a similar statistic to 8 weak pupils in a year group of 120, except you can group those and teach them together to maximize your time. And at least you have several colleagues that can <strike>willingly</strike> begrudgingly support you in that <strike>out of the kindness of their heart</strike> because they want a good reference, whereas there's just little me and one colleague to do all the work.

Once on the UPS scale should Heads of Core Subjects be paid on the Leadership Scale. Interested in comments from Heads of Core Subjects.

Click to expand...

Only if they want to go to lots more meetings and do endless duties.
Otherwise, UPS +TLR is usually as good as what they might be paid on the Leadership scale.
Heads are allowed to structure their leadership teams as they wish - there's no 'should' about it.

Noemie
BTEC assess through coursework only, every subject but maths has a coursework element.
You missed my point about "all subjects being equal"
You are correct about my ability to pull kids out of other subjects for intervention.
I don't like doing it, but again without high results everyone suffers.
Also you, not I, refer to subjects other than the core as little.
Not counting 6th form core subjects are responsible for the progress of all pupils, therefore I believe that the salary reflects this.
Not sure about the crossing outs in the last section. That seems like a bit of an strange dig at someone.

Not having a dig, just trying to inject a bit of humour in case I come across as bitter.
Having a coursework element isn't the same as not having a terminal exam (and believe me, I'd rather we didn't have the coursework element to organise).
I accept that you want the best results because otherwise everyone suffers, as you put it, but pulling pupils out of my lesson is going to make <u>my </u>results suffer. But hey, so long as their English, maths and science is ok, then we can just blame the HODs from the other subjects for not achieving the target grades.
You may not have used the term little, but this thread is about creating two payscales, so I think the idea of hierarchy is already established. Sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth.
It's nice that core subjects want to help pupils progress in all subjects. It'd be even nicer if, as I stated above, they enabled us to do this by not removing pupils from our lessons, by not stating that other subjects aren't as useful (not saying you personally have, just observing what has come back to me via pupils) and if they put their money where their mouth is and actually did something tangible to raise achievement in all subjects, not just their own. When you find such a school, let me know, I'll be the first one to apply (and support a different payscale).
I guess I found your idea of putting myself in your shoes slightly ironic, that's all...

Head of core department with 8 staff and me paid just over $5000 as a TLR and has been the same for a number of years. Our department has made a significant impact on results so the head and deputies get paid more as they are leadership spine but none of us do! Not sure that is fair but don't have the power to make a change. I realise they have other responsibilities as well as academic but the governors are pleased with the improvement with results they have made.